The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.

Kansas Democrats last won a U.S. Senate seat in 1932. That’s the longest active losing streak in the nation.

There’s only been one close race. In 1974, Bob Dole edged Bill Roy by 1.7 points. Democrats haven’t come close since.

Which raises the question: What would it take for Democrats to finally break the streak?

First, the broader political environment must break decisively in their favor. Second, they must field a top-tier candidate.

Since 1934, the president’s party has lost an average of four Senate seats in midterm elections. High presidential approval can blunt those losses and in rare cases, like 2002 in the aftermath of 9/11, even produce gains. Low approval can increase them, like in 2006, when George W. Bush’s approval fell to the low 30s and Republicans lost six Senate seats.

Trump’s approval rating has slipped steadily since taking office and is especially low among Independents whose support will be crucial in November.

Midterm elections also have much lower voter turnout than presidential years. The smaller electorate tilts heavily toward the out-party, which is more motivated to regain power.

In addition, shifting party coalitions benefit Democrats. Democrat voters today are more affluent and educated than in the past, characteristics strongly associated with political participation, especially in off-year election cycles.

Thus, intense Democrat motivation to stop Trump, stronger turnout propensity, and Trump’s low approval ratings together create a rare opening for Kansas Democrats.

Yet, so far, the Senate contest has failed to attract topnotch candidates.

Laura Kelly ruled it out. Barbara Bollier, who turned in the most competitive performance by a Democrat in a quarter-century, losing by 11 points against Roger Marshall in 2020, appears content working behind the scenes.

That brings us to U.S. Representative Sharice Davids.

Citing Republican plans to gerrymander her congressional district, Davids signaled a potential Senate bid, though nothing official. While gerrymandering efforts seem to have lost momentum, they’ve worked to Davids’s advantage, amplifying her visibility and providing an unambiguous vehicle for attacking Republican overreach and extremism, themes that historically play well for Kansas Democrats. For 2025, Davids raised 2.3 million, nearly forty percent coming from small donations under $200. During the same time period, incumbent Senator Marshall raised 2.5 million, with high dollar contributions over $2,000 making up the largest share.

Davids has also established herself as a formidable campaigner. She not only unseated four-term incumbent Kevin Yoder by a commanding nine-point margin in 2018 but has since turned the third congressional district into a reliably blue seat. In advanced forecasting models, Davids stands out, repeatedly outperforming expectations derived from political fundamentals. By contrast, Marshall underperforms, falling well short of what an average Republican candidate would achieve given the environmental conditions.

Davids, in other words, could be the Democrat who ends the streak.

She would undoubtedly attract national attention, having already broken down barriers, becoming a historic first in several categories.

Now, the chance to dismantle another long-standing barrier lies ahead. If you value political competition, you’re hoping Davids takes that chance.

You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2026/1/1767841383793.png" alt="Mark R. Joslyn (Courtesy photo)" />
 <figcaption>Mark R. Joslyn (Courtesy photo)</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;MARK JOSLYNInsight KansasKansas Democrats last won a U.S. Senate seat in 1932. That’s the longest active losing streak in the nation.There’s only been one close race. In 1974, Bob Dole edged Bill Roy by 1.7 points. Democrats haven’t come close since.Which raises the question: What would it take for Democrats to finally break the streak?First, the broader political environment must break decisively in their favor. Second, they must field a top-tier candidate.Let’s consider the environment.Since 1934, the president’s party has lost an average of four Senate seats in midterm elections. High presidential approval can blunt those losses and in rare cases, like 2002 in the aftermath of 9/11, even produce gains. Low approval can increase them, like in 2006, when George W. Bush’s approval fell to the low 30s and Republicans lost six Senate seats.Trump’s approval rating has slipped steadily since taking office and is especially low among Independents whose support will be crucial in November.Midterm elections also have much lower voter turnout than presidential years. The smaller electorate tilts heavily toward the out-party, which is more motivated to regain power.In addition, shifting party coalitions benefit Democrats. Democrat voters today are more affluent and educated than in the past, characteristics strongly associated with political participation, especially in off-year election cycles.Thus, intense Democrat motivation to stop Trump, stronger turnout propensity, and Trump’s low approval ratings together create a rare opening for Kansas Democrats.Yet, so far, the Senate contest has failed to attract topnotch candidates.Laura Kelly ruled it out. Barbara Bollier, who turned in the most competitive performance by a Democrat in a quarter-century, losing by 11 points against Roger Marshall in 2020, appears content working behind the scenes.That brings us to U.S. Representative Sharice Davids.Citing Republican plans to gerrymander her congressional district, Davids signaled a potential Senate bid, though nothing official. While gerrymandering efforts seem to have lost momentum, they’ve worked to Davids’s advantage, amplifying her visibility and providing an unambiguous vehicle for attacking Republican overreach and extremism, themes that historically play well for Kansas Democrats. For 2025, Davids raised 2.3 million, nearly forty percent coming from small donations under $200. During the same time period, incumbent Senator Marshall raised 2.5 million, with high dollar contributions over $2,000 making up the largest share.Davids has also established herself as a formidable campaigner. She not only unseated four-term incumbent Kevin Yoder by a commanding nine-point margin in 2018 but has since turned the third congressional district into a reliably blue seat. In advanced forecasting models, Davids stands out, repeatedly outperforming expectations derived from political fundamentals. By contrast, Marshall underperforms, falling well short of what an average Republican candidate would achieve given the environmental conditions.Davids, in other words, could be the Democrat who ends the streak.She would undoubtedly attract national attention, having already broken down barriers, becoming a historic first in several categories.Now, the chance to dismantle another long-standing barrier lies ahead. If you value political competition, you’re hoping Davids takes that chance.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

Insight Kansas: No better time than now, Kansas Democrats and U.S. Senate seat

The winter storm that shut down many schools last Monday did not slow down the Legislature. The short duration of the legislative session made it important to continue the introduction of the bills, committee hearings, and legislative sessions that result in modifications to our state’s laws. The cold weather has hampered many outdoor activities and made life a little more difficult for those who are out in the weather. I can assure you that the weather and the pace inside the Capital was more heated than the outdoor clime.

The Senate judiciary committee has had hearings on modifying the lockup of juveniles arrested for a crime. Some of the discussion involves increasing the length of time that a juvenile can be in detention and increasing the severity of punishment when the juvenile is in possession of a firearm.

Hearings related to Pharmacy Benefit Managers have been held in the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance committee. These hearings have attracted significant amounts of testimony, often with contradictory statements between opponents and proponents.

Legislation that was passed this week and my vote:

· Senate Bill 244: This bill contained language to address two issues related to an individual’s birth sex. The first was to clarify that the legislature expects accurate reporting of the birth sex on the birth certificate and all other government documents that use the birth certificate as a source document. The second issue expressed the legislature’s requirement that an individual’s birth sex determines which restroom they will use in government owned buildings. This bill passed the Senate 30 to 9. I voted aye on SB244.

· Senate Concurrent Resolution 1615: This resolution honored the life of slain leader Charlie Kirk by recognizing his birthday as “Charlie Kirk Day.” Significant debate was held before the Resolution passed 30 to 9. I voted aye on SCR1615.

· Senate Bill 254: State and local benefits including in-state college tuition have been enjoyed by individuals in Kansas illegally. This legislation prohibits illegal

aliens from receiving state and local benefits. I support legal immigration; however, we should not be incentivizing any illegal behavior including illegal immigration. The bill passed 30 to 9. I voted aye on SB254.

· Senate Bill 184: We have a fund to help clean up dry cleaning chemical spills. Due to inflation, the fund was insufficient to cover clean-up costs. This legislation increased the assessment on dry cleaning. The bill passed 37 to 2. I voted yes for this statute, which is designed to fund the cost of these chemical spills.

A big thank you to each of you who contacted me either by distance or in person. The volume of mail during session makes it difficult to respond in a timely manner, however I read all mail sent and encourage you to continue with your communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/9/1758725306304.jpeg" alt="Kansas 24th District Senator, Scott Hill" />
 <figcaption>Kansas 24th District Senator, Scott Hill</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;SCOTT HILLSenator 24th DistrictThe winter storm that shut down many schools last Monday did not slow down the Legislature. The short duration of the legislative session made it important to continue the introduction of the bills, committee hearings, and legislative sessions that result in modifications to our state’s laws. The cold weather has hampered many outdoor activities and made life a little more difficult for those who are out in the weather. I can assure you that the weather and the pace inside the Capital was more heated than the outdoor clime.The Senate judiciary committee has had hearings on modifying the lockup of juveniles arrested for a crime. Some of the discussion involves increasing the length of time that a juvenile can be in detention and increasing the severity of punishment when the juvenile is in possession of a firearm.Hearings related to Pharmacy Benefit Managers have been held in the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance committee. These hearings have attracted significant amounts of testimony, often with contradictory statements between opponents and proponents.Legislation that was passed this week and my vote:· Senate Bill 244: This bill contained language to address two issues related to an individual’s birth sex. The first was to clarify that the legislature expects accurate reporting of the birth sex on the birth certificate and all other government documents that use the birth certificate as a source document. The second issue expressed the legislature’s requirement that an individual’s birth sex determines which restroom they will use in government owned buildings. This bill passed the Senate 30 to 9. I voted aye on SB244.· Senate Concurrent Resolution 1615: This resolution honored the life of slain leader Charlie Kirk by recognizing his birthday as “Charlie Kirk Day.” Significant debate was held before the Resolution passed 30 to 9. I voted aye on SCR1615.· Senate Bill 254: State and local benefits including in-state college tuition have been enjoyed by individuals in Kansas illegally. This legislation prohibits illegalaliens from receiving state and local benefits. I support legal immigration; however, we should not be incentivizing any illegal behavior including illegal immigration. The bill passed 30 to 9. I voted aye on SB254.· Senate Bill 184: We have a fund to help clean up dry cleaning chemical spills. Due to inflation, the fund was insufficient to cover clean-up costs. This legislation increased the assessment on dry cleaning. The bill passed 37 to 2. I voted yes for this statute, which is designed to fund the cost of these chemical spills.A big thank you to each of you who contacted me either by distance or in person. The volume of mail during session makes it difficult to respond in a timely manner, however I read all mail sent and encourage you to continue with your communications.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

View From the Hill: Week three legislation update

In the 1960’s there was a spoof on the spy thriller genre called “Get Smart.” Mel Brooks directed this series that was remade several times as it poked fun at some of the sophisticated gadgetry exposed in the James Bond series of movies. One of the “cutting edge” techno gadgets in the TV show was the shoe phone that the main character Maxwell Smart used. In the 1960’s the idea of taking off your shoe and talking into it was comical. Sixty-five years of creative inventing has made talking into your shoe, even though still impractical, certainly achievable.

The advent of the cellphone has changed most of our lives. We have phones in our watches and phones in our pockets. Phones in our ears and phones in our hands. The idea of being able to communicate with our fellow human beings at any time anywhere on the surface would appear to improve social interaction. A very different thing happened, though when in 2007 the idea of having the internet in our hands was realized with the first Apple smartphone. Suddenly, the lure of communicating with people we have never met became the rage. Everyone now has the ability to broadcast their life to the world at large.

This column is not about passing judgement on the use of social media as a whole. It is intended to focus specifically on the harmful exposure that unlimited access to social media does to the adolescent mind. Ten years after the beginnings of the “smart phone era” researcher and author Jonathan Haight wrote a book called the The Anxious Generation. In the best-selling book Haight explores how juvenile development occurs when exposed to electronic devices. In particular, the author examines academic achievement and mental illness changes since 2007. The conclusions reached have resonated with lawmakers around the world.

The reduction in academic performance in Kansas students, coupled with increased behavioral and mental health issues led me to suspect cellphone social media exposure before I read The Anxious Generation. Four years ago, I introduced legislation to ban the use of cellphones in schools. The book reaffirmed what I was hearing from the field and has changed the minds of most lawmakers. The Governor and both chambers of the legislature appear to be ready to follow Johnathan Haight’s recommendations. While

I applaud the legislative effort, my practical side affirms that the intrusion of social media in children’s lives may be abated but not eliminated.

The title of “Get Smart” should be a real life thought process. We need to be smarter about the use of technology. It has an important place in all our lives. However, we need to be smart in the way we use it. The current promises of AI, that it will take over all our reasoning, should elicit profound discernment on our part. In the 1960’s taking off your shoe to talk to someone may have been funny, but today some of the ridiculous things we do should be examined with a great deal of “common sense.”

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/9/1758725306304.jpeg" alt="Kansas 24th District Senator, Scott Hill" />
 <figcaption>Kansas 24th District Senator, Scott Hill</figcaption>
 </figure>By: SCOTT HILL24th District Kansas SenatorIn the 1960’s there was a spoof on the spy thriller genre called “Get Smart.” Mel Brooks directed this series that was remade several times as it poked fun at some of the sophisticated gadgetry exposed in the James Bond series of movies. One of the “cutting edge” techno gadgets in the TV show was the shoe phone that the main character Maxwell Smart used. In the 1960’s the idea of taking off your shoe and talking into it was comical. Sixty-five years of creative inventing has made talking into your shoe, even though still impractical, certainly achievable.The advent of the cellphone has changed most of our lives. We have phones in our watches and phones in our pockets. Phones in our ears and phones in our hands. The idea of being able to communicate with our fellow human beings at any time anywhere on the surface would appear to improve social interaction. A very different thing happened, though when in 2007 the idea of having the internet in our hands was realized with the first Apple smartphone. Suddenly, the lure of communicating with people we have never met became the rage. Everyone now has the ability to broadcast their life to the world at large.This column is not about passing judgement on the use of social media as a whole. It is intended to focus specifically on the harmful exposure that unlimited access to social media does to the adolescent mind. Ten years after the beginnings of the “smart phone era” researcher and author Jonathan Haight wrote a book called the The Anxious Generation. In the best-selling book Haight explores how juvenile development occurs when exposed to electronic devices. In particular, the author examines academic achievement and mental illness changes since 2007. The conclusions reached have resonated with lawmakers around the world.The reduction in academic performance in Kansas students, coupled with increased behavioral and mental health issues led me to suspect cellphone social media exposure before I read The Anxious Generation. Four years ago, I introduced legislation to ban the use of cellphones in schools. The book reaffirmed what I was hearing from the field and has changed the minds of most lawmakers. The Governor and both chambers of the legislature appear to be ready to follow Johnathan Haight’s recommendations. WhileI applaud the legislative effort, my practical side affirms that the intrusion of social media in children’s lives may be abated but not eliminated.The title of “Get Smart” should be a real life thought process. We need to be smarter about the use of technology. It has an important place in all our lives. However, we need to be smart in the way we use it. The current promises of AI, that it will take over all our reasoning, should elicit profound discernment on our part. In the 1960’s taking off your shoe to talk to someone may have been funny, but today some of the ridiculous things we do should be examined with a great deal of “common sense.”You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

View from the Hill: Get smart

The debate over immigration enforcement—particularly the visibility and conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—has once again moved to center stage. Headlines dwell on tactical deployments, workplace raids, and local cooperation agreements. But while enforcement tactics often dominate the conversation, Kansans’ views are far more nuanced than the “for or against” frame suggests. If we’re serious about making humane, effective policy, we need to start with what our neighbors actually believe.

Let’s begin with the bedrock: most Kansans recognize that legal immigration is a net positive. About two‑thirds of respondents in the 2025 Kansas Speaks survey conducted by Fort Hays State University’s Docking Institute agreed that legal immigrants contribute to the economic growth of the US (66.2%), to Kansas’ overall vitality (64.1%), and to the economic health of their own communities (64.3%). Roughly 15% disagreed with these statements. That’s not a razor-thin margin, it’s a solid majority consensus. In a state where small businesses and agriculture depend on steady labor and local spending, this matters.

The cultural and fiscal story mirrors the economic one. More than half of respondents agreed that legal immigrants pay taxes and contribute to government revenue (55.1%), enrich American culture and values (55.1%), and often take jobs that Americans don’t want (56.1%). About 18% disagreed with these statements. These survey results complicate the caricature of immigration as purely a strain on public resources. Kansans are saying: immigrants are part of the economic and civic fabric of our communities and our state is stronger because of them.

That said, Kansans have concerns about the country’s immigration policies. A plurality still believes the country is receiving “too many” immigrants (43.7% agree; 31.2% disagree). And while nearly half reject the notion that legal immigrants take jobs from American citizens (48.4%), almost a third (31%) claim immigrants displace workers. Opinions split on social services (38.1% agree immigrants take services away; 42.2% disagree) and on expanding admissions for low‑skilled immigrants (27.4% agree; 30.9% disagree). Yet Kansans exhibit openness to skills-based immigration: 48% support accepting more high‑skilled immigrants, with only 17.8% opposed.

In sum, if Washington was looking to Kansans for a policy blueprint it would be one that protects broad legal immigration flows, invests in workforce integration, and aligns admissions with labor market realities—without losing sight of humanitarian obligations.

Where does ICE fit into this picture? Kansans’ views on unauthorized immigration reflect both pragmatism and caution. A sizable share believe that if people are undocumented but otherwise law‑abiding, authorities should leave them alone (44.4% agree; 36.3% disagree). Nearly as many say unauthorized immigrants contribute more to society than they take (41.8% agree; 39.2% disagree). At the same time, concerns persist: 43% view unauthorized immigrants as a danger to public safety, while 33.3% disagree. Though on detention, Kansans lean against the most punitive approach—more oppose (42.2%) than support (38.1%) arresting and placing unauthorized immigrants in detention camps while awaiting hearings.

Taken together, Kansans are signaling a clear preference on immigration policy: focus enforcement on genuine threats, avoid sweeping tactics that ensnare families and threaten community trust, and expand lawful pathways that match our economy’s needs. These signals reject both extremes: hardline “open borders” and the punitive “lock ‘em up” approach.

These attitudes highlight a preference for policies that are pragmatic, balanced, and firmly grounded in both security and dignity—prioritizing violent offenders and trafficking rings instead of mass raids at schools, churches, and workplaces; investing in due‑process safeguards; and coordinating with local officials to ensure that public safety—not political theater—drives deployment decisions.

The Kansas Speaks survey reminds us that Kansans, can hold two ideas at once: immigrants strengthen our economy and communities, and immigration enforcement should be smart, lawful, and humane.

The message from Kansas is clear: immigration policy works best when it reflects both economic realities and human dignity. That means focusing on real threats, not political talking points.

Alexandra Middlewood, PhD is an associate professor and chair of the Political Science Department at Wichita State University.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/9/1694699489540.png" alt="Alexandra Middlewood" />
 <figcaption>Alexandra Middlewood</figcaption>
 </figure>By: ALEXANDRA MIDDLEWOODThe debate over immigration enforcement—particularly the visibility and conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—has once again moved to center stage. Headlines dwell on tactical deployments, workplace raids, and local cooperation agreements. But while enforcement tactics often dominate the conversation, Kansans’ views are far more nuanced than the “for or against” frame suggests. If we’re serious about making humane, effective policy, we need to start with what our neighbors actually believe.Let’s begin with the bedrock: most Kansans recognize that legal immigration is a net positive. About two‑thirds of respondents in the 2025 Kansas Speaks survey conducted by Fort Hays State University’s Docking Institute agreed that legal immigrants contribute to the economic growth of the US (66.2%), to Kansas’ overall vitality (64.1%), and to the economic health of their own communities (64.3%). Roughly 15% disagreed with these statements. That’s not a razor-thin margin, it’s a solid majority consensus. In a state where small businesses and agriculture depend on steady labor and local spending, this matters.The cultural and fiscal story mirrors the economic one. More than half of respondents agreed that legal immigrants pay taxes and contribute to government revenue (55.1%), enrich American culture and values (55.1%), and often take jobs that Americans don’t want (56.1%). About 18% disagreed with these statements. These survey results complicate the caricature of immigration as purely a strain on public resources. Kansans are saying: immigrants are part of the economic and civic fabric of our communities and our state is stronger because of them.That said, Kansans have concerns about the country’s immigration policies. A plurality still believes the country is receiving “too many” immigrants (43.7% agree; 31.2% disagree). And while nearly half reject the notion that legal immigrants take jobs from American citizens (48.4%), almost a third (31%) claim immigrants displace workers. Opinions split on social services (38.1% agree immigrants take services away; 42.2% disagree) and on expanding admissions for low‑skilled immigrants (27.4% agree; 30.9% disagree). Yet Kansans exhibit openness to skills-based immigration: 48% support accepting more high‑skilled immigrants, with only 17.8% opposed.In sum, if Washington was looking to Kansans for a policy blueprint it would be one that protects broad legal immigration flows, invests in workforce integration, and aligns admissions with labor market realities—without losing sight of humanitarian obligations.Where does ICE fit into this picture? Kansans’ views on unauthorized immigration reflect both pragmatism and caution. A sizable share believe that if people are undocumented but otherwise law‑abiding, authorities should leave them alone (44.4% agree; 36.3% disagree). Nearly as many say unauthorized immigrants contribute more to society than they take (41.8% agree; 39.2% disagree). At the same time, concerns persist: 43% view unauthorized immigrants as a danger to public safety, while 33.3% disagree. Though on detention, Kansans lean against the most punitive approach—more oppose (42.2%) than support (38.1%) arresting and placing unauthorized immigrants in detention camps while awaiting hearings.Taken together, Kansans are signaling a clear preference on immigration policy: focus enforcement on genuine threats, avoid sweeping tactics that ensnare families and threaten community trust, and expand lawful pathways that match our economy’s needs. These signals reject both extremes: hardline “open borders” and the punitive “lock ‘em up” approach.These attitudes highlight a preference for policies that are pragmatic, balanced, and firmly grounded in both security and dignity—prioritizing violent offenders and trafficking rings instead of mass raids at schools, churches, and workplaces; investing in due‑process safeguards; and coordinating with local officials to ensure that public safety—not political theater—drives deployment decisions.The Kansas Speaks survey reminds us that Kansans, can hold two ideas at once: immigrants strengthen our economy and communities, and immigration enforcement should be smart, lawful, and humane.The message from Kansas is clear: immigration policy works best when it reflects both economic realities and human dignity. That means focusing on real threats, not political talking points.Alexandra Middlewood, PhD is an associate professor and chair of the Political Science Department at Wichita State University.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

Insight Kansas: What Kansans really think about immigration

Recently an article appeared about a statue in Sunset Park.

At the museum on Iron Street, I talked to Crystal Hammerschmidt about the statue. I believe she did the legwork to place the statue where it is. She hastened to tell me that a committee voted to select it to receive the 2024 Salina People's Choice award and that a committee (perhaps another committee) voted to place it where it is.

Crystal said the time-consuming part was obtaining the polished black granite capstone, which had to be brought in from outside the U.S.

Speaking for the veterans of Salina area, I would like to express appreciation to Crystal, and to others as appropriate.

Veterans wishing to express a personal thank you might stop by the Smoky Hill Museum at 211 West Iron Avenue.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2026/1/1768336164580.png" alt="The City of Salina proudly announced the final installation of the 2024 SculptureTour Salina People's Choice Award winner "Going Home," by distinguished artist Sondra L. Jonson at Sunset Park in Salina, KS" />
 <figcaption>The City of Salina proudly announced the final installation of the 2024 SculptureTour Salina People's Choice Award winner "Going Home," by distinguished artist Sondra L. Jonson at Sunset Park in Salina, KS</figcaption>
 </figure>By: DONALD L. KOELLINGU.S.M.C. 1963-66Recently an article appeared about a statue in Sunset Park.At the museum on Iron Street, I talked to Crystal Hammerschmidt about the statue. I believe she did the legwork to place the statue where it is. She hastened to tell me that a committee voted to select it to receive the 2024 Salina People's Choice award and that a committee (perhaps another committee) voted to place it where it is.Crystal said the time-consuming part was obtaining the polished black granite capstone, which had to be brought in from outside the U.S.Speaking for the veterans of Salina area, I would like to express appreciation to Crystal, and to others as appropriate.Veterans wishing to express a personal thank you might stop by the Smoky Hill Museum at 211 West Iron Avenue.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

U.S. Veteran thanks Salina Arts & Humanities for establishing statue at Sunset Park

I want to wish each of you a happy Christmas and a blessed New Year! World history shows that humans for millennia have celebrated the solar cycle that promises that days will start to get longer. Recently I saw an article that downplayed Christmas as just another “winter solstice” holiday. While each individual can celebrate any holiday of their own choosing, it is important to realize that our nation chose to celebrate the specific holiday of Christmas. In the midst of all of the parties with eating, drinking, and gift giving, the term Christmas has an actual meaning. 

The “Christ mass” is a religious service that recognizes the birth of Jesus Christ. Starting in the year 336 AD the Roman government decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th. Since that time some cultures have celebrated on other days around the 25th. There is no reliable record of the date of his actual birth, so an appropriate recognition day was selected. History does record that Jesus, unlike the mythology of other celebrations, is an actual, real person.

Our nation recognizes the difference that Christianity has made on people’s lives. The concept of having holidays that cause us to pause in our busy lives and remember what supersedes the immediate and takes us to a focus on what is truly important, is a credit to our country. 

The words of our 33rd President Harry S. Truman, who dealt with his share of real-life tragedy, are meaningful yet today, “We miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the Incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ’s birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone—the love of God and the love of man—will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today.” 

I encourage you to look to the future with hope and the primacy of that hope is a God who reached down to mankind to change the trajectory of our hearts.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1708266344072.png" alt="Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mirpro/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mirpro/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;SCOTT HILL24th District Kansas SenatorI want to wish each of you a happy Christmas and a blessed New Year! World history shows that humans for millennia have celebrated the solar cycle that promises that days will start to get longer. Recently I saw an article that downplayed Christmas as just another “winter solstice” holiday. While each individual can celebrate any holiday of their own choosing, it is important to realize that our nation chose to celebrate the specific holiday of Christmas. In the midst of all of the parties with eating, drinking, and gift giving, the term Christmas has an actual meaning. The “Christ mass” is a religious service that recognizes the birth of Jesus Christ. Starting in the year 336 AD the Roman government decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th. Since that time some cultures have celebrated on other days around the 25th. There is no reliable record of the date of his actual birth, so an appropriate recognition day was selected. History does record that Jesus, unlike the mythology of other celebrations, is an actual, real person.Our nation recognizes the difference that Christianity has made on people’s lives. The concept of having holidays that cause us to pause in our busy lives and remember what supersedes the immediate and takes us to a focus on what is truly important, is a credit to our country. The words of our 33rd President Harry S. Truman, who dealt with his share of real-life tragedy, are meaningful yet today, “We miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the Incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ’s birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone—the love of God and the love of man—will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today.” I encourage you to look to the future with hope and the primacy of that hope is a God who reached down to mankind to change the trajectory of our hearts.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

View from the Hill: The true meaning of "Christmas"

In the fantasy world of Hollywood, actors have a role to play, imitating a make believe, or in some cases, a real character. In real life we each have roles that define who we are. It may be the role of a mother, a father, or another caretaker. It may be the role of an inventor to make other people’s lives easier. The role of the farmer or rancher is to feed the world. An investor or banker makes people’s dreams come to life. Teachers and authors provide a transfer of information from one generation to the next. Each of the roles fulfilled by members of our communities are important. The synergy of many individuals accomplishing diverse tasks combined is what makes an economy work. While the bright lights of Hollywood make acting roles appear glamorous, the true strength of our economic system rests in all of the individuals who accomplish their roles with pride and excellence.

The different units of government also play a role in making America the greatest nation on earth. While individuals define their own role, government has a role that is dictated by the defining ideas of a nation. Two hundred and fifty years ago, our country embarked on a perilous journey of defining the role of a very different kind of country. Today, because of the success of that journey we have the luxury of assigning many roles to government that were not originally intended. Some of these roles have redeeming consequences, while others may not. It is important as we look at policy for the future to examine the roles of government, not just in light of how they have evolved, but in a logical analysis of the function of government.

The framers of the Constitution made it very clear that they wanted limited influence by the Federal government in their lives. Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address said, “a wise &amp; frugal government… shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Using that guiding principle, the Constitution primarily focused on the protection of rights for the citizens. Article IV, Section IV makes this very clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on the Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against

domestic Violence.” This strong statement of protection is asserted as the primary role of the central government.

The current Federal budget does contain around $1T for the defense of our country. This week the Senate approved a $901B Defense Authorization Bill. That amount accounts for about 13% of the overall budget. The largest item in the budget, though, is not for the security of our borders. In fact, the largest item in our federal budget was not even considered in our Constitution. We spend over $2T, nearly one quarter of every federal dollar, on health insurance. We also spend 13% of our hard-earned tax money to service the interest on our growing debt, which incidentally is accumulating at a rate of over a trillion dollars per year.

The roles that our United States government has assumed in the 250 years of our country have gone way past protecting the enumerated rights envisioned by the founders. We have become a nation that borrows money to buy votes. It is popular to provide free or reduced-price services to voters. People generally like it when the government sends them a check instead of the other way around. The rapidly accumulating federal debt, however, should make us realize that economic stability is not achieved, either on a personal level or a national government level, by borrowing to provide services we cannot afford. The share of the national debt is approximately $125,000 for every man, woman, and child in our country. That means that if you live in a family of four you owe half a million dollars to pay off the debt your country has accumulated. The role of a nation should be to protect its citizens, not expose them to federal bankruptcy.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1708266344072.png" alt="Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mirpro/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mirpro/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By: SCOTT HILL24th District Kansas SenatorIn the fantasy world of Hollywood, actors have a role to play, imitating a make believe, or in some cases, a real character. In real life we each have roles that define who we are. It may be the role of a mother, a father, or another caretaker. It may be the role of an inventor to make other people’s lives easier. The role of the farmer or rancher is to feed the world. An investor or banker makes people’s dreams come to life. Teachers and authors provide a transfer of information from one generation to the next. Each of the roles fulfilled by members of our communities are important. The synergy of many individuals accomplishing diverse tasks combined is what makes an economy work. While the bright lights of Hollywood make acting roles appear glamorous, the true strength of our economic system rests in all of the individuals who accomplish their roles with pride and excellence.The different units of government also play a role in making America the greatest nation on earth. While individuals define their own role, government has a role that is dictated by the defining ideas of a nation. Two hundred and fifty years ago, our country embarked on a perilous journey of defining the role of a very different kind of country. Today, because of the success of that journey we have the luxury of assigning many roles to government that were not originally intended. Some of these roles have redeeming consequences, while others may not. It is important as we look at policy for the future to examine the roles of government, not just in light of how they have evolved, but in a logical analysis of the function of government.The framers of the Constitution made it very clear that they wanted limited influence by the Federal government in their lives. Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address said, “a wise &amp; frugal government… shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Using that guiding principle, the Constitution primarily focused on the protection of rights for the citizens. Article IV, Section IV makes this very clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on the Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) againstdomestic Violence.” This strong statement of protection is asserted as the primary role of the central government.The current Federal budget does contain around $1T for the defense of our country. This week the Senate approved a $901B Defense Authorization Bill. That amount accounts for about 13% of the overall budget. The largest item in the budget, though, is not for the security of our borders. In fact, the largest item in our federal budget was not even considered in our Constitution. We spend over $2T, nearly one quarter of every federal dollar, on health insurance. We also spend 13% of our hard-earned tax money to service the interest on our growing debt, which incidentally is accumulating at a rate of over a trillion dollars per year.The roles that our United States government has assumed in the 250 years of our country have gone way past protecting the enumerated rights envisioned by the founders. We have become a nation that borrows money to buy votes. It is popular to provide free or reduced-price services to voters. People generally like it when the government sends them a check instead of the other way around. The rapidly accumulating federal debt, however, should make us realize that economic stability is not achieved, either on a personal level or a national government level, by borrowing to provide services we cannot afford. The share of the national debt is approximately $125,000 for every man, woman, and child in our country. That means that if you live in a family of four you owe half a million dollars to pay off the debt your country has accumulated. The role of a nation should be to protect its citizens, not expose them to federal bankruptcy.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

View from the Hill: The role of government

When you think of your local community, what are the businesses that quickly come into your mind? Is it the box stores that have the personality of a rock? Is it the single proprietor local businesses that know you by name? Is it the chain store that provides you with a consistent and uniform product? Is it a boutique shop that has a uniqueness that makes you feel at home? I appreciate each and every business that we have in central Kansas. The mix of large and small retailers provide us with both convenience and personality. The flavor of Kansas and the rest of rural America is the business owners that put their heart and soul into making their niche the best it can be.

As a Kansas State University student in the 1980’s I remember a bakery called Swanson’s Bakery. During the day it was a normal bakery that provided flour-based products for its customers. Richard “Swannie” Swanson ran this small bakery until 1986. What K-State alumni remember about the Swanson bakery, though was the back door. One person I saw on social media even claims to have that back door in their basement. If you have never been on a Swannies run you are probably confused at this point, but there is something to be learned from Swanson’s Bakery.

For twenty years before it closed this bakery provided a memorable and calorie-laden treat for the late-night customers. At midnight on any given night Swannie would have the back door open to provide “yum yums” to the hundreds of college students who would line up in the alley behind the bakery. The students who were up studying or doing whatever college students do at that time of night, were not provided with essential nutrition, unless they were suffering from hypoglycemia, but they were certainly given a huge dose of memories. The end of an era happened in 1986 and in 1987 the “progressive” new Manhattan Town Place mall was constructed, after condemning businesses in that area of Manhattan.

It may be nostalgic to wish that we could have both large and small retailers in our towns. The flavor of the owner/proprietor may not trump the desire of city planners to capitalize on regional appeal, but it certainly created an environment that instills quality of life memories in customers. As a policy maker it is critical that we focus on principles, not emotional reaction. The power of the American system is the selection process that

the market brings to economic endeavors. Small businesses, whether they provide essential or niche markets, need to be competitive without protectionism, which is rooted in corruption. Large businesses that have economies of size should be held to the same standard of market competitiveness. The use of taxpayer dollars that in many cases are collected from small entrepreneurs should not be used to incentivize large retailers just because they have political power. The role of government is to protect the principles of hard work, property ownership, and freedom to pursue dreams. It is not the place of government at any level to pick winners and losers. When government tips the field to benefit certain players, the market not only suffers but additionally corruption is institutionalized. When you think of businesses in your community, it is my desire that you think of businesses that build their locality, not take from it.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1708266344072.png" alt="Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mipro/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mipro/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By: SCOTT HILL24th District Kansas SenatorWhen you think of your local community, what are the businesses that quickly come into your mind? Is it the box stores that have the personality of a rock? Is it the single proprietor local businesses that know you by name? Is it the chain store that provides you with a consistent and uniform product? Is it a boutique shop that has a uniqueness that makes you feel at home? I appreciate each and every business that we have in central Kansas. The mix of large and small retailers provide us with both convenience and personality. The flavor of Kansas and the rest of rural America is the business owners that put their heart and soul into making their niche the best it can be.As a Kansas State University student in the 1980’s I remember a bakery called Swanson’s Bakery. During the day it was a normal bakery that provided flour-based products for its customers. Richard “Swannie” Swanson ran this small bakery until 1986. What K-State alumni remember about the Swanson bakery, though was the back door. One person I saw on social media even claims to have that back door in their basement. If you have never been on a Swannies run you are probably confused at this point, but there is something to be learned from Swanson’s Bakery.For twenty years before it closed this bakery provided a memorable and calorie-laden treat for the late-night customers. At midnight on any given night Swannie would have the back door open to provide “yum yums” to the hundreds of college students who would line up in the alley behind the bakery. The students who were up studying or doing whatever college students do at that time of night, were not provided with essential nutrition, unless they were suffering from hypoglycemia, but they were certainly given a huge dose of memories. The end of an era happened in 1986 and in 1987 the “progressive” new Manhattan Town Place mall was constructed, after condemning businesses in that area of Manhattan.It may be nostalgic to wish that we could have both large and small retailers in our towns. The flavor of the owner/proprietor may not trump the desire of city planners to capitalize on regional appeal, but it certainly created an environment that instills quality of life memories in customers. As a policy maker it is critical that we focus on principles, not emotional reaction. The power of the American system is the selection process thatthe market brings to economic endeavors. Small businesses, whether they provide essential or niche markets, need to be competitive without protectionism, which is rooted in corruption. Large businesses that have economies of size should be held to the same standard of market competitiveness. The use of taxpayer dollars that in many cases are collected from small entrepreneurs should not be used to incentivize large retailers just because they have political power. The role of government is to protect the principles of hard work, property ownership, and freedom to pursue dreams. It is not the place of government at any level to pick winners and losers. When government tips the field to benefit certain players, the market not only suffers but additionally corruption is institutionalized. When you think of businesses in your community, it is my desire that you think of businesses that build their locality, not take from it.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

View from the Hill: How important is a donut?

By: ALEXANDRA&nbsp;MIDDLEWOOD

By any honest measure, too many Kansas families are struggling to make ends meet. The latest State of ALICE in Kansas report—ALICE stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed—finds that 38% of Kansas households were below the ALICE Threshold in 2023, meaning they could not afford the basics even while working. That includes 12% living in poverty and another 26% who earn too much to qualify for aid but still can’t cover essentials like housing, child care, food, transportation, and healthcare.

This isn’t a fringe problem; it’s the working backbone of our economy. These are Kansans we depend on daily, like child‑care providers, home‑health aides, cashiers, and delivery drivers. Kansans feel the squeeze. In the 2025 Kansas Speaks public opinion survey—conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University—36.1% said the Kansas economy is getting worse, and 46.5% reported feeling very or moderately concerned that the state’s economy could seriously threaten their family’s welfare—a worry that ticked up from last year. When people don’t see a path to stability, they pull back on spending, on investing in education, on starting businesses. That feeds a cycle of slower growth.

Inflation adds insult to injury. In September, prices across the Midwest rose 3.1%. Housing costs are up 4.5% and rent surged 5.0% compared to 3.4% nationally. For a Kansas renter already under ALICE’s budget pressure, that is the difference between paying for a car repair or skipping the prescription refill.

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that lower-income households experience greater impact from inflation than higher-income ones, meaning Kansans living on tighter budgets face disproportionate pressures. After adjusting for inflation, Kansas’ median household incomes have barely budged post-COVID, lagging behind national progress. Inflation’s heavier burden on lower-income families widens this gap, as working families spend more of their limited incomes on essentials.

Meanwhile, the recent federal government shutdown made a bad situation worse. Kansas Action for Children reports that the shutdown disrupted key economic data flows (including unemployment statistics) and contributed to state revenues missing estimates by $3.4 million in September due to a steep $35.4 million shortfall in corporate income tax receipts, despite

stronger individual income and sales taxes. Overall receipts for the month were about 1.9% lower than in September 2024.

Beyond numbers on a page, the shutdown threatened essential benefits: SNAP and WIC faced imminent disruption, putting nearly 190,000 Kansans at risk of losing food assistance, with 48,000 WIC recipients depending on nutrition support for mothers and children. When Washington cannot keep the lights on, the ripple effects hit our paychecks, our schools, our main streets, and exacerbated those among us who are already vulnerable.

When federal policy falters, Kansas families pay the price first. Stabilize the basics—food assistance, health insurance support, small‑business lending, predictable budgets—and we give vulnerable households the breathing room to become the bedrock of the state’s growth rather than the warning siren of its fragility.

If we want a Kansas where hard work reliably leads to stability, we need policies that stop pushing families underwater and start helping them reach the shore.

As the Kansas Legislature gears up for its 2026 session, lawmakers are already sending signals about where priorities lie—the initial bills suggest little additional support for working families. Early filings include a proposal to delay school start dates until after Labor Day; legislation aimed at loosening library-district governance; and a “Kansas Teacher Shortage Relief Act” to ease re-entry for retired educators.

These bills signal lawmakers’ attention to core community institutions like schools and libraries, but if our state truly wants to lift those families hovering near or beneath the ALICE threshold, the session must go further.

Legislators should prioritize enhanced affordability—expanding access to affordable child care, increasing housing subsidies, and upgrading income thresholds to reflect changing living costs. Federal programs remain vital, but state action can shield families when Washington falters.

The 2026 Legislature has a choice: tinker at the edges or invest in Kansans’ ability to thrive. If leadership is serious about long-term economic resilience, it must anchor its agenda in policies that pair educational and community improvements with real financial support. That means not just making communities stronger, but lifting the families who live in them

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/9/1694699489540.png" alt="Alexandra Middlewood&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Alexandra Middlewood&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>By: ALEXANDRA&nbsp;MIDDLEWOODBy any honest measure, too many Kansas families are struggling to make ends meet. The latest State of ALICE in Kansas report—ALICE stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed—finds that 38% of Kansas households were below the ALICE Threshold in 2023, meaning they could not afford the basics even while working. That includes 12% living in poverty and another 26% who earn too much to qualify for aid but still can’t cover essentials like housing, child care, food, transportation, and healthcare.This isn’t a fringe problem; it’s the working backbone of our economy. These are Kansans we depend on daily, like child‑care providers, home‑health aides, cashiers, and delivery drivers. Kansans feel the squeeze. In the 2025 Kansas Speaks public opinion survey—conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University—36.1% said the Kansas economy is getting worse, and 46.5% reported feeling very or moderately concerned that the state’s economy could seriously threaten their family’s welfare—a worry that ticked up from last year. When people don’t see a path to stability, they pull back on spending, on investing in education, on starting businesses. That feeds a cycle of slower growth.Inflation adds insult to injury. In September, prices across the Midwest rose 3.1%. Housing costs are up 4.5% and rent surged 5.0% compared to 3.4% nationally. For a Kansas renter already under ALICE’s budget pressure, that is the difference between paying for a car repair or skipping the prescription refill.The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that lower-income households experience greater impact from inflation than higher-income ones, meaning Kansans living on tighter budgets face disproportionate pressures. After adjusting for inflation, Kansas’ median household incomes have barely budged post-COVID, lagging behind national progress. Inflation’s heavier burden on lower-income families widens this gap, as working families spend more of their limited incomes on essentials.Meanwhile, the recent federal government shutdown made a bad situation worse. Kansas Action for Children reports that the shutdown disrupted key economic data flows (including unemployment statistics) and contributed to state revenues missing estimates by $3.4 million in September due to a steep $35.4 million shortfall in corporate income tax receipts, despitestronger individual income and sales taxes. Overall receipts for the month were about 1.9% lower than in September 2024.Beyond numbers on a page, the shutdown threatened essential benefits: SNAP and WIC faced imminent disruption, putting nearly 190,000 Kansans at risk of losing food assistance, with 48,000 WIC recipients depending on nutrition support for mothers and children. When Washington cannot keep the lights on, the ripple effects hit our paychecks, our schools, our main streets, and exacerbated those among us who are already vulnerable.When federal policy falters, Kansas families pay the price first. Stabilize the basics—food assistance, health insurance support, small‑business lending, predictable budgets—and we give vulnerable households the breathing room to become the bedrock of the state’s growth rather than the warning siren of its fragility.If we want a Kansas where hard work reliably leads to stability, we need policies that stop pushing families underwater and start helping them reach the shore.As the Kansas Legislature gears up for its 2026 session, lawmakers are already sending signals about where priorities lie—the initial bills suggest little additional support for working families. Early filings include a proposal to delay school start dates until after Labor Day; legislation aimed at loosening library-district governance; and a “Kansas Teacher Shortage Relief Act” to ease re-entry for retired educators.These bills signal lawmakers’ attention to core community institutions like schools and libraries, but if our state truly wants to lift those families hovering near or beneath the ALICE threshold, the session must go further.Legislators should prioritize enhanced affordability—expanding access to affordable child care, increasing housing subsidies, and upgrading income thresholds to reflect changing living costs. Federal programs remain vital, but state action can shield families when Washington falters.The 2026 Legislature has a choice: tinker at the edges or invest in Kansans’ ability to thrive. If leadership is serious about long-term economic resilience, it must anchor its agenda in policies that pair educational and community improvements with real financial support. That means not just making communities stronger, but lifting the families who live in themYou can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

Insight Kansas: Kansas families are drowning—will 2026 lawmakers throw a lifeline?

Between November 22 and November 29, 2022 the city of Salina signed a 3 year $169,950 contract with Flock Group inc/Flock Safety for the installation of 22 Automatic licence Plate Readers (ALPR), also referred to colloquially as Flock Cameras. This contract is set to end on December 31, 2025. According to Flock their cameras can “Capture more detail with Vehicle FingerprintR and Flock FreeFormTM. Turn images into actionable evidence-no plate required”. This suggests that the cameras are more than just ALPRs, but can capture other details of your car such as color, make, model, bumper stickers, roof rack, dents and more.

This article will be focused on Flock Safety however, Salina is also doing business with Leonardo, a competitor of Flock. The privacy issues mentioned in this article will also apply to the Leonardo surveillance system.

Unlike regular traffic cameras which take a picture when an infraction is committed. Flock Cameras capture details about every single vehicle that appears in their line of sight, whether an infraction has been committed or not. Combine this with a subscription to their “Flock Safety Platform” which centralizes all the information and makes it searchable and you have a 24/7 surveillance system. According to Flock, the data is only stored for 30 days before it is permanently deleted, however, they will comply with local laws and regulations that allow for a different retention period.

With enough cameras, this system can allow Law enforcement officers (LEO) from Salina and beyond (if Salina chooses to share its data) to track the whereabouts of any vehicle driving in Salina. With enough cameras they will be able to determine where you work, where your kids go to school, which doctor you visit, which church you attend, which protest you attend, who you associate with, who you support politically and more. Not only will they be able to track your location, they will know exactly when you do all these things which means they can determine your habits and patterns of behavior. Currently, with just 22 Flock cameras they can’t easily get to that level of detail, however, in December 2024 they were aiming to get 21 Leonardo ELSAG cameras which suggest they are willing to increase the number of surveillance cameras. As of this writing, Salina LEOs (and possibly other LEOs) are able to track the whereabouts of anyone driving in Salina for any reason, whether that person has committed a crime or not. No warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion necessary. This is not theoretical, there is already evidence of abuse. A Police Lieutenant in Kechi, Kansas was arrested in 2022 for stalking his wife using the Flock surveillance system. A Police Chief from Sedgwick, Kansas resigned in 2023 after admitting to using the Flock surveillance system to stalk his ex-girlfriend. Yet another police chief has been arrested and charged with using the LPR camera of his department to stalk and harass multiple individuals.

Federal Agencies can access Flock data even if they themselves do not have an account because LEOs can always perform the search on their behalf. This means that ICE can access Flock data even in states like Illinois who explicitly forbids sharing data for the purpose of immigration enforcement. When performing searches in the Flock surveillance system, LEOs often use vague terms like “investigation”, “stolen”, “other” and “suspicious vehicle”. The Flock surveillance system cannot verify that a search is being performed for a legitimate law

enforcement reason. Any reason given will allow access to the data.This combined with the lack of a warrant is what has allowed the abuses mentioned above.

Many Police departments, such as the Salina PD, are attempting to mitigate abuse by requiring LEOs to enter “a case number” or if not applicable a “type of crime” and “location”. Data such as “reasons” for the search and the “operator” who performed the search are tracked and could be audited by Salina PD. This raises several questions: 1) How will the audit be performed, will it check all the searches performed or just a subset? If a subset, what is the protocol for choosing how big it should be and how likely is it to catch abuse? 2) Will the auditor really be able to know if a search was legitimate? Will they be able to tell that a LEO was really looking for a suspicious vehicle? By the time the audit happens your rights have already been violated so if we choose to allow this warrantless surveillance system it’s really important to determine how effective a deterrent the threat of an audit is. There is no doubt that many police departments including Salina PD want to have the Flock surveillance system because they believe it will help them solve crime but, is mass surveillance and relinquishing our right to privacy the best way to create a safe city? Are we as a community willing to let the government track our every move throughout the city, whether we’ve committed a crime or not?

If a government agency wishes to implement such a surveillance system they should seek explicit consent from their constituents and at the bare minimum they should be transparent about how they use that system. Currently the SPD is not willing to be transparent about their use of the surveillance system. A Public Records Request for the activities log and the audits of those logs has been denied.

Currently Flock Safety says that their system does not use facial recognition or biometrics to identify and track people however, section 19 of their patent suggests their system could be used in identifying gender, race, height, weight and even the type of clothing someone is wearing. Recent investigation has found that they are actively working on training their model to identify people. Flock is sending our sensitive data to workers overseas tasked with identifying people, objects, and even sounds as a way to train Flock’s Safety AI.

For those not yet convinced that this is an issue I would point you to the history of our Federal Government. The US government has admitted to literally tracking hundreds of civil rights activists, journalists, antiwar activists and many other individuals and groups it deemed too radical. The Federal Government will undoubtedly have access to the Flock surveillance system, whether that’s through having a Flock account or compelling local officials to share the data with them. If you aim to participate in politics or public life you should be concerned.

It is now clear that Flock security protocols leave much to be desired, so it really is a matter of time before their servers are breached if they haven’t been already. More tech savvy companies like Google and Apple have had their share of breaches. The hackers won’t need to hack Flock itself, they can hack one of the many thousands of police departments with a flock subscription. Login information including passwords of at least 35 flock customers have already been hacked - and made available for sale on a Russian language cybercrime forum. Are we as a community willing to have data about our whereabouts stored on a big corporation’s private server when they have failed to require basic security procedures like two-factor authentication to access their surveillance system? Should we really trust this company when recent evidence suggests that the cameras transferring the data are not very secure?

The ability for Flock to make money depends on the company's ability to collect a large amount of data that is easily shareable and searchable. The more data it has the more useful its surveillance system will be to its customers. The more useful the surveillance system the more money the company will make. This means that as time goes on Flock will seek to increase the amount and type of data it collects. If we've learned anything from social media companies it's that they will always seek more data. As long as there is money to be made there is no point at which they will say, "that's enough".

The Institute for Justice (IJ), a Non-Profit law firm focused on violations of constitutional rights filed a Lawsuit in 2024 challenging the use of Flock Cameras in Norfolk, Virginia. They argue the Flock surveillance system violates the fourth amendment which protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. According to IJ, the supreme court has ruled that prolonged tracking of cellphone location data is considered a search and at least one federal court has found that using a helicopter to monitor a city is a search. This means that in both cases the police would need a warrant, so why would the Flock surveillance system which tracks the whereabouts of mostly innocent people be an exception?

On November 17, 2025 the Northern California ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit against the city of San Jose,California, alleging that by blanketing the city with 500 Flock cameras, the city is violating resident’s constitutional rights to privacy and protection against unreasonable search. A judge in Washington recently ruled that Flock data are subject to the public records act under state law, see article here. Which means anyone that files a public request and has the money to pay for it can now access the data. This is not the case in Kansas, as of January 1, 2023 the Kansas legislature passed a law essentially making it so that the disclosure of “Records of a public agency that contain captured license plate data or that pertain to the location of an automated license plate recognition system” is not required. SPD is using this law to deny a request made for both the activity logs and audits of the activity logs even though they have discretionary power to release that information with appropriate redactions if they so choose.

The 22 Flock cameras currently installed throughout the streets of Salina allow our whereabouts, habits and patterns to be tracked 24/7 - without a warrant, reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If this is not “Big Brother” style surveillance then, what is? Make no mistake this is just the beginning, as people get accustomed to mass surveillance it is a matter of time before facial recognition or other biometric systems become implemented in our streets in the name of safety. Why else would Flock be actively training their AI on biometrics? Folks, big tech companies are not your friend, their aim is to make money full stop. If that means they track your every move then that’s what they will do. Big Brother is coming, government agencies with the help of private companies like Flock are watching your every move, and many departments like the SPD are not willing to be transparent about how they use this warrantless surveillance system. We know from history that the US government is perfectly willing to track groups and individuals like civil rights activists it deems too radical. So the question for Salina residents is this: Are you willing to submit to warrantless government surveillance and the whims of big tech corporations? If you are against Big Brother style surveillance email the city commission or attend one of their meetings and let them know they should cancel any contract with Flock Safety and Leonardo. Let them know that in the future you want the opportunity to give your consent for any such surveillance system being implemented in your city.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/12/1765323530184.jpeg" alt="Automatic License Plate Reader s(ALPR), known as FLOCK Security cameras. Google Image" />
 <figcaption>Automatic License Plate Reader s(ALPR), known as FLOCK Security cameras. Google Image</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;EDY CHEREMONDBetween November 22 and November 29, 2022 the city of Salina signed a 3 year $169,950 contract with Flock Group inc/Flock Safety for the installation of 22 Automatic licence Plate Readers (ALPR), also referred to colloquially as Flock Cameras. This contract is set to end on December 31, 2025. According to Flock their cameras can “Capture more detail with Vehicle FingerprintR and Flock FreeFormTM. Turn images into actionable evidence-no plate required”. This suggests that the cameras are more than just ALPRs, but can capture other details of your car such as color, make, model, bumper stickers, roof rack, dents and more.This article will be focused on Flock Safety however, Salina is also doing business with Leonardo, a competitor of Flock. The privacy issues mentioned in this article will also apply to the Leonardo surveillance system.<h2>Why Should you care?</h2>Privacy concernsUnlike regular traffic cameras which take a picture when an infraction is committed. Flock Cameras capture details about every single vehicle that appears in their line of sight, whether an infraction has been committed or not. Combine this with a subscription to their “Flock Safety Platform” which centralizes all the information and makes it searchable and you have a 24/7 surveillance system. According to Flock, the data is only stored for 30 days before it is permanently deleted, however, they will comply with local laws and regulations that allow for a different retention period.With enough cameras, this system can allow Law enforcement officers (LEO) from Salina and beyond (if Salina chooses to share its data) to track the whereabouts of any vehicle driving in Salina. With enough cameras they will be able to determine where you work, where your kids go to school, which doctor you visit, which church you attend, which protest you attend, who you associate with, who you support politically and more. Not only will they be able to track your location, they will know exactly when you do all these things which means they can determine your habits and patterns of behavior. Currently, with just 22 Flock cameras they can’t easily get to that level of detail, however, in December 2024 they were aiming to get 21 Leonardo ELSAG cameras which suggest they are willing to increase the number of surveillance cameras. As of this writing, Salina LEOs (and possibly other LEOs) are able to track the whereabouts of anyone driving in Salina for any reason, whether that person has committed a crime or not. No warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion necessary. This is not theoretical, there is already evidence of abuse. A Police Lieutenant in Kechi, Kansas was arrested in 2022 for stalking his wife using the Flock surveillance system. A Police Chief from Sedgwick, Kansas resigned in 2023 after admitting to using the Flock surveillance system to stalk his ex-girlfriend. Yet another police chief has been arrested and charged with using the LPR camera of his department to stalk and harass multiple individuals.Federal Agencies can access Flock data even if they themselves do not have an account because LEOs can always perform the search on their behalf. This means that ICE can access Flock data even in states like Illinois who explicitly forbids sharing data for the purpose of immigration enforcement. When performing searches in the Flock surveillance system, LEOs often use vague terms like “investigation”, “stolen”, “other” and “suspicious vehicle”. The Flock surveillance system cannot verify that a search is being performed for a legitimate lawenforcement reason. Any reason given will allow access to the data.This combined with the lack of a warrant is what has allowed the abuses mentioned above.Many Police departments, such as the Salina PD, are attempting to mitigate abuse by requiring LEOs to enter “a case number” or if not applicable a “type of crime” and “location”. Data such as “reasons” for the search and the “operator” who performed the search are tracked and could be audited by Salina PD. This raises several questions: 1) How will the audit be performed, will it check all the searches performed or just a subset? If a subset, what is the protocol for choosing how big it should be and how likely is it to catch abuse? 2) Will the auditor really be able to know if a search was legitimate? Will they be able to tell that a LEO was really looking for a suspicious vehicle? By the time the audit happens your rights have already been violated so if we choose to allow this warrantless surveillance system it’s really important to determine how effective a deterrent the threat of an audit is. There is no doubt that many police departments including Salina PD want to have the Flock surveillance system because they believe it will help them solve crime but, is mass surveillance and relinquishing our right to privacy the best way to create a safe city? Are we as a community willing to let the government track our every move throughout the city, whether we’ve committed a crime or not?If a government agency wishes to implement such a surveillance system they should seek explicit consent from their constituents and at the bare minimum they should be transparent about how they use that system. Currently the SPD is not willing to be transparent about their use of the surveillance system. A Public Records Request for the activities log and the audits of those logs has been denied.Currently Flock Safety says that their system does not use facial recognition or biometrics to identify and track people however, section 19 of their patent suggests their system could be used in identifying gender, race, height, weight and even the type of clothing someone is wearing. Recent investigation has found that they are actively working on training their model to identify people. Flock is sending our sensitive data to workers overseas tasked with identifying people, objects, and even sounds as a way to train Flock’s Safety AI.For those not yet convinced that this is an issue I would point you to the history of our Federal Government. The US government has admitted to literally tracking hundreds of civil rights activists, journalists, antiwar activists and many other individuals and groups it deemed too radical. The Federal Government will undoubtedly have access to the Flock surveillance system, whether that’s through having a Flock account or compelling local officials to share the data with them. If you aim to participate in politics or public life you should be concerned.Data BreachesIt is now clear that Flock security protocols leave much to be desired, so it really is a matter of time before their servers are breached if they haven’t been already. More tech savvy companies like Google and Apple have had their share of breaches. The hackers won’t need to hack Flock itself, they can hack one of the many thousands of police departments with a flock subscription. Login information including passwords of at least 35 flock customers have already been hacked - and made available for sale on a Russian language cybercrime forum. Are we as a community willing to have data about our whereabouts stored on a big corporation’s private server when they have failed to require basic security procedures like two-factor authentication to access their surveillance system? Should we really trust this company when recent evidence suggests that the cameras transferring the data are not very secure?Business ModelThe ability for Flock to make money depends on the company's ability to collect a large amount of data that is easily shareable and searchable. The more data it has the more useful its surveillance system will be to its customers. The more useful the surveillance system the more money the company will make. This means that as time goes on Flock will seek to increase the amount and type of data it collects. If we've learned anything from social media companies it's that they will always seek more data. As long as there is money to be made there is no point at which they will say, "that's enough".Legal issuesThe Institute for Justice (IJ), a Non-Profit law firm focused on violations of constitutional rights filed a Lawsuit in 2024 challenging the use of Flock Cameras in Norfolk, Virginia. They argue the Flock surveillance system violates the fourth amendment which protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. According to IJ, the supreme court has ruled that prolonged tracking of cellphone location data is considered a search and at least one federal court has found that using a helicopter to monitor a city is a search. This means that in both cases the police would need a warrant, so why would the Flock surveillance system which tracks the whereabouts of mostly innocent people be an exception?On November 17, 2025 the Northern California ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit against the city of San Jose,California, alleging that by blanketing the city with 500 Flock cameras, the city is violating resident’s constitutional rights to privacy and protection against unreasonable search. A judge in Washington recently ruled that Flock data are subject to the public records act under state law, see article here. Which means anyone that files a public request and has the money to pay for it can now access the data. This is not the case in Kansas, as of January 1, 2023 the Kansas legislature passed a law essentially making it so that the disclosure of “Records of a public agency that contain captured license plate data or that pertain to the location of an automated license plate recognition system” is not required. SPD is using this law to deny a request made for both the activity logs and audits of the activity logs even though they have discretionary power to release that information with appropriate redactions if they so choose.<h2>Conclusion</h2>The 22 Flock cameras currently installed throughout the streets of Salina allow our whereabouts, habits and patterns to be tracked 24/7 - without a warrant, reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If this is not “Big Brother” style surveillance then, what is? Make no mistake this is just the beginning, as people get accustomed to mass surveillance it is a matter of time before facial recognition or other biometric systems become implemented in our streets in the name of safety. Why else would Flock be actively training their AI on biometrics? Folks, big tech companies are not your friend, their aim is to make money full stop. If that means they track your every move then that’s what they will do. Big Brother is coming, government agencies with the help of private companies like Flock are watching your every move, and many departments like the SPD are not willing to be transparent about how they use this warrantless surveillance system. We know from history that the US government is perfectly willing to track groups and individuals like civil rights activists it deems too radical. So the question for Salina residents is this: Are you willing to submit to warrantless government surveillance and the whims of big tech corporations? If you are against Big Brother style surveillance email the city commission or attend one of their meetings and let them know they should cancel any contract with Flock Safety and Leonardo. Let them know that in the future you want the opportunity to give your consent for any such surveillance system being implemented in your city.Edy Cheremond,Salina, KSYou can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

The start of a government surveillance system in Salina

Russell Arben Fox’s recent column, “Questions for, and about, city managers in Kansas,” raises timely and important points about how our cities are governed. As a civic-minded Kansan and a retired city manager, I appreciate his reminder that debates over the council-manager form of government are neither trivial nor temporary. I write to offer historical context on why the city manager profession emerged more than a century ago and to address the concerns he raises about democracy, accountability, and effectiveness.

The council-manager model took shape during the Progressive Era, when many American cities were plagued by corruption, patronage, and inefficiency. Reformers believed that trained, nonpartisan administrators could manage public services more honestly and effectively than political machines. This belief led the National Civic League and what is now the International City/County Management Association to publish the first Model City Charter in 1915, introducing a system in which an elected council sets policy and a professional manager executes it. Early adopters reported immediate improvements in fiscal management, service delivery, and ethical integrity. In short, the city manager position was created to clean up city hall and restore public trust.

Over the past century, this system has proven its value. Today, a majority of U.S. cities with populations over 2,500 use the council-manager model, including most communities in Kansas. Here, elected mayors serve as part of the council, while a professional manager oversees day-to-day operations. This structure has helped Kansas cities avoid the hyper-partisanship seen at higher levels of government and focus instead on pragmatic problem-solving.

City managers bring professional training in public administration, finance, and urban policy, and they serve all residents regardless of political affiliation. Their recommendations are grounded in analysis, not political advantage. Research supports these benefits: one comprehensive study found that cities with council-manager governments have roughly 57 percent fewer corruption convictions than strong-mayor cities. Public trust is also higher at the local level than at the federal or state level, due in part to the nonpartisan, professional nature of council-manager governance.

Professor Fox raises an important question about democratic accountability: if managers and staff help shape complex policies and budgets, does this create a “democratic deficit”? It is a reasonable concern, but one that the council-manager system was designed to address. Managers serve entirely at the pleasure of the elected council and can be removed by a simple majority. The council/commission sets the community’s vision, adopts ordinances and budgets, and represents voter priorities; the manager implements these policies and provides professional options for consideration. Managers are evaluated—and retained—based on how effectively they carry out the council’s direction. Rather than diluting democracy, this model reinforces it by ensuring that elected officials make policy while administrative professionals carry it out responsibly.

Dr. John Nalbandian of Lawrence captures this balance well: city managers stand “at the intersection of the political and administrative arenas,” helping bridge what is politically acceptable with what is operationally sustainable. This connection strengthens democratic governance by allowing elected leaders to focus on community vision while relying on professional staff to deliver results.

To be sure, supporters of the council-manager model must take citizen engagement seriously. If voters sense that their voices matter less because professionals run daily operations, turnout may suffer. The solution, however, is greater transparency and more opportunities for public involvement—not abandoning a system that has served Kansas communities well. Wichita’s recent debate over its manager hiring process demonstrates that residents expect openness, even within a professionally administered government. We should welcome that expectation.

Comparing this model with the strong-mayor system underscores what is at stake. In strong-mayor cities, executive power is concentrated in one elected individual who oversees departments, prepares budgets, and can veto council actions. While this structure can produce decisive leadership, it also allows the city’s priorities—and personnel—to shift dramatically with each new administration. A strong-mayor model can energize a community when leadership is sound, but when it is not, the consequences can be destabilizing. Numerous cities that experienced turbulence or scandal under powerful mayors later added professional oversight or shifted toward council-manager governance. Concentrating executive authority in one office is inherently risky.

Kansas’s experience has shown the advantages of balanced, professional administration. Under home-rule authority, each city chooses its governing structure, and the vast majority have selected the council-manager form. This is because it helps ensure stability, ethical conduct, and long-term planning that transcends election cycles. Our governing bodies still debate vigorously, but city services remain steady and centered on community needs rather than personal politics. As Fox himself notes, this model “fosters pragmatic governance” in a time when pragmatism is sorely needed.

After ten decades of practice, the council-manager system remains a proven framework that upholds both democratic accountability and professional competence. It was created to curb corruption and improve performance, and those goals are as vital today as they were 100 years ago. Rather than concentrating power in a single elected executive, we should continue strengthening the partnership between our elected councils and the professional managers who carry out their vision.

Mr. Fox is right that Kansans should regularly examine how we govern ourselves. But before considering a shift to strong-mayor systems, we should recall what the council-manager model was designed to prevent and what it continues to provide: stability, transparency, ethical administration, and a collaborative balance between democratic leadership and professional expertise. Our communities deserve nothing less.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.By: JON QUINDAYRussell Arben Fox’s recent column, “Questions for, and about, city managers in Kansas,” raises timely and important points about how our cities are governed. As a civic-minded Kansan and a retired city manager, I appreciate his reminder that debates over the council-manager form of government are neither trivial nor temporary. I write to offer historical context on why the city manager profession emerged more than a century ago and to address the concerns he raises about democracy, accountability, and effectiveness.The council-manager model took shape during the Progressive Era, when many American cities were plagued by corruption, patronage, and inefficiency. Reformers believed that trained, nonpartisan administrators could manage public services more honestly and effectively than political machines. This belief led the National Civic League and what is now the International City/County Management Association to publish the first Model City Charter in 1915, introducing a system in which an elected council sets policy and a professional manager executes it. Early adopters reported immediate improvements in fiscal management, service delivery, and ethical integrity. In short, the city manager position was created to clean up city hall and restore public trust.Over the past century, this system has proven its value. Today, a majority of U.S. cities with populations over 2,500 use the council-manager model, including most communities in Kansas. Here, elected mayors serve as part of the council, while a professional manager oversees day-to-day operations. This structure has helped Kansas cities avoid the hyper-partisanship seen at higher levels of government and focus instead on pragmatic problem-solving.City managers bring professional training in public administration, finance, and urban policy, and they serve all residents regardless of political affiliation. Their recommendations are grounded in analysis, not political advantage. Research supports these benefits: one comprehensive study found that cities with council-manager governments have roughly 57 percent fewer corruption convictions than strong-mayor cities. Public trust is also higher at the local level than at the federal or state level, due in part to the nonpartisan, professional nature of council-manager governance.Professor Fox raises an important question about democratic accountability: if managers and staff help shape complex policies and budgets, does this create a “democratic deficit”? It is a reasonable concern, but one that the council-manager system was designed to address. Managers serve entirely at the pleasure of the elected council and can be removed by a simple majority. The council/commission sets the community’s vision, adopts ordinances and budgets, and represents voter priorities; the manager implements these policies and provides professional options for consideration. Managers are evaluated—and retained—based on how effectively they carry out the council’s direction. Rather than diluting democracy, this model reinforces it by ensuring that elected officials make policy while administrative professionals carry it out responsibly.Dr. John Nalbandian of Lawrence captures this balance well: city managers stand “at the intersection of the political and administrative arenas,” helping bridge what is politically acceptable with what is operationally sustainable. This connection strengthens democratic governance by allowing elected leaders to focus on community vision while relying on professional staff to deliver results.To be sure, supporters of the council-manager model must take citizen engagement seriously. If voters sense that their voices matter less because professionals run daily operations, turnout may suffer. The solution, however, is greater transparency and more opportunities for public involvement—not abandoning a system that has served Kansas communities well. Wichita’s recent debate over its manager hiring process demonstrates that residents expect openness, even within a professionally administered government. We should welcome that expectation.Comparing this model with the strong-mayor system underscores what is at stake. In strong-mayor cities, executive power is concentrated in one elected individual who oversees departments, prepares budgets, and can veto council actions. While this structure can produce decisive leadership, it also allows the city’s priorities—and personnel—to shift dramatically with each new administration. A strong-mayor model can energize a community when leadership is sound, but when it is not, the consequences can be destabilizing. Numerous cities that experienced turbulence or scandal under powerful mayors later added professional oversight or shifted toward council-manager governance. Concentrating executive authority in one office is inherently risky.Kansas’s experience has shown the advantages of balanced, professional administration. Under home-rule authority, each city chooses its governing structure, and the vast majority have selected the council-manager form. This is because it helps ensure stability, ethical conduct, and long-term planning that transcends election cycles. Our governing bodies still debate vigorously, but city services remain steady and centered on community needs rather than personal politics. As Fox himself notes, this model “fosters pragmatic governance” in a time when pragmatism is sorely needed.After ten decades of practice, the council-manager system remains a proven framework that upholds both democratic accountability and professional competence. It was created to curb corruption and improve performance, and those goals are as vital today as they were 100 years ago. Rather than concentrating power in a single elected executive, we should continue strengthening the partnership between our elected councils and the professional managers who carry out their vision.Mr. Fox is right that Kansans should regularly examine how we govern ourselves. But before considering a shift to strong-mayor systems, we should recall what the council-manager model was designed to prevent and what it continues to provide: stability, transparency, ethical administration, and a collaborative balance between democratic leadership and professional expertise. Our communities deserve nothing less.Jon QuindayRussell, KansasYou can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

City Managers: A century of balancing professionalism and democracy in local government

Leaders can unite or divide, whether it be by design or by misstep.

Thanksgiving’s evolution shows how both can happen.

On October 3, 1863, amid profound division and upheaval of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued a formal proclamation that established a National Day of Thanksgiving. He invited his “fellow citizens in every part of the United States…to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

Perfectly timed after the Gettysburg victory, the proclamation capitalized on the Union’s improved outlook and Lincoln’s emerging stature as a unifier.

Lincoln hoped a shared day of thanks would help “heal the wounds of the nation” and establish a tradition that would bond Americans for generations.

Editor of the Ladies’ Magazine, Godey’s Lady’s Book, and author of the children’s poem “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” Hale had lobbied state and federal officials for nearly 40 years to make Thanksgiving a national holiday.

She wrote to Lincoln in the summer of 1863 asserting that only the president had the power to make the holiday, “permanently, an American custom and institution.”

Presidents thereafter followed Lincoln’s example.

However, in 1939, during the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt issued his own proclamation. He called for Thanksgiving to be moved back to the third Thursday of November.

At the time, retailers waited until after Thanksgiving to display Christmas decorations and hold sales. By adding an additional seven days to the shopping season, Roosevelt hoped to boost consumer spending. A Gallup opinion poll showed 62 percent of Americans disapproved. Roughly 80 percent of Republicans disapproved, while a majority of Democrats supported it.

Twenty-two mostly Democrat-leaning states observed Thanksgiving on the new date. Twenty-two mostly Republican-leaning states resisted. Three celebrated Thanksgiving on both dates.

A day meant to unite the country turned into a symbol of political difference. A reminder that partisan polarization is nothing new in U.S. politics. Kansas Republican Governor Payne Ratner announced that in the sunflower state “we do not destroy tradition merely to gain newspaper headlines.”

Alf Landon, FDR’s rival in the 1936 election, criticized Roosevelt’s “impulsiveness” and strongly objected to “springing it [the change] upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.”

People started calling Thanksgiving “Franksgiving”.

Amid unprecedented crises, Lincoln and Roosevelt used Thanksgiving for different purposes. Lincoln envisioned it as a path toward national reconciliation. Roosevelt saw it as a lever for economic activity.

One president embraced tradition. The other disrupted it.

Eventually, Congress intervened and established Thanksgiving as a federal holiday, restoring its observance to the fourth Thursday in November.

The partisan fight faded. Black Friday emerged as a defining feature of American consumer culture, a phenomenon widely embraced by Democrats and Republicans.

Retailers now start promotions in late October and continue through Cyber Monday.

Thanksgiving ultimately became two traditions. First a day for gratitude, then a day for deals.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/9/1756906385173.png" alt="Mark R. Joslyn" />
 <figcaption>Mark R. Joslyn</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;MARK R. JOSLYNUniversity of KansasLeaders can unite or divide, whether it be by design or by misstep.Thanksgiving’s evolution shows how both can happen.On October 3, 1863, amid profound division and upheaval of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued a formal proclamation that established a National Day of Thanksgiving. He invited his “fellow citizens in every part of the United States…to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”Perfectly timed after the Gettysburg victory, the proclamation capitalized on the Union’s improved outlook and Lincoln’s emerging stature as a unifier.Lincoln hoped a shared day of thanks would help “heal the wounds of the nation” and establish a tradition that would bond Americans for generations.Sarah Josepha Hale hoped so too.Editor of the Ladies’ Magazine, Godey’s Lady’s Book, and author of the children’s poem “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” Hale had lobbied state and federal officials for nearly 40 years to make Thanksgiving a national holiday.She wrote to Lincoln in the summer of 1863 asserting that only the president had the power to make the holiday, “permanently, an American custom and institution.”Presidents thereafter followed Lincoln’s example.However, in 1939, during the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt issued his own proclamation. He called for Thanksgiving to be moved back to the third Thursday of November.At the time, retailers waited until after Thanksgiving to display Christmas decorations and hold sales. By adding an additional seven days to the shopping season, Roosevelt hoped to boost consumer spending. A Gallup opinion poll showed 62 percent of Americans disapproved. Roughly 80 percent of Republicans disapproved, while a majority of Democrats supported it.Twenty-two mostly Democrat-leaning states observed Thanksgiving on the new date. Twenty-two mostly Republican-leaning states resisted. Three celebrated Thanksgiving on both dates.A day meant to unite the country turned into a symbol of political difference. A reminder that partisan polarization is nothing new in U.S. politics. Kansas Republican Governor Payne Ratner announced that in the sunflower state “we do not destroy tradition merely to gain newspaper headlines.”Alf Landon, FDR’s rival in the 1936 election, criticized Roosevelt’s “impulsiveness” and strongly objected to “springing it [the change] upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.”People started calling Thanksgiving “Franksgiving”.Amid unprecedented crises, Lincoln and Roosevelt used Thanksgiving for different purposes. Lincoln envisioned it as a path toward national reconciliation. Roosevelt saw it as a lever for economic activity.One president embraced tradition. The other disrupted it.Eventually, Congress intervened and established Thanksgiving as a federal holiday, restoring its observance to the fourth Thursday in November.But here’s the irony.Roosevelt’s vision stuck.The partisan fight faded. Black Friday emerged as a defining feature of American consumer culture, a phenomenon widely embraced by Democrats and Republicans.Retailers now start promotions in late October and continue through Cyber Monday.Thanksgiving ultimately became two traditions. First a day for gratitude, then a day for deals.Lincoln meets Roosevelt.Oh, yes, and then there’s football.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

INSIGHT KANSAS: The two traditions of Thanksgiving

“It is a transformative tool.” “It is the greatest technological advance of our lifetime.” “It will cure cancer.” “It will change every field and every job.” “It will solve global warming.”

These and other headlines like them have screamed at us that the “it” which is Artificial Intelligence (AI), is the great new silver bullet. When I hear superlatives, without limit, it is time to take a deeper look. So, what is AI?

At the core of the computer is the idea of assisted decision making. That idea actually dates back hundreds of years. However, with the invention of electronic chips, computing became ubiquitous in our lives. The simplest concept of a computer is that it decides between option “a” and option “b” based on input “c.” By storing the instructions for future use, the computer always makes the same decision on the same inputs, then reports the results as an output. 

Since the inception of electronic computers, the speed and complexity of these instructions and related calculations have increased consistently and dramatically. As storage space increases and the number of instructions multiply, the ability to control complex situations is accentuated. The important thing to remember is that conventional computing functions by repeating known situations.

With advanced computing technology, which is erroneously called AI, programmers have developed a method where computers make decisions on unknown variables. We as humans do this on a continuous basis. We find ourselves making a decision in a situation we have never experienced before. These novel situations may cause us stress but result in an increase in our knowledge base. The computer programmer’s AI mimics the human’s ability to decide in a novel situation. While humans make decisions based on an infinite number of experiential inputs, computer technology is limited to the parameters of programmed memory. Collaborative programming has increased the robustness of the decision-making capabilities of the computer. However, the computer does not have ethics or awareness of it’s own, rather it is the collective morality of its creator. In a simple illustration it may be the latest iteration of the historical idea of man versus machine.

An interesting peripheral issue that becomes extremely important is energy usage. A human being makes an infinite number of decisions every day on a caloric consumption of 2000 – 2500 Kcal. This amount of energy is essentially the equivalent of a 100-watt lightbulb. Estimates for AI computing reveal a three-fold increase in our electric power consumption over the next ten years. An approximate forecast for America is a 400 terawatt increase in electric power consumption. This is approximately 10,000 times more than all of the residents of America’s combined caloric input. While I am supportive of the idea that computing is important in our world, it is minor compared to the need for relevant education for our children. The importance of knowledge-rich education coupled with enhancing processing skills in our brains has never been greater. Humans have always been superior to the machines we create because of our emphasis on educating the next generation. Mind numbing mediocrity of our education system could result in a scenario where our AI machines not only rob us of our ability to think, but also the energy we need to live.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1708266344072.png" alt="Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mipro/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mipro/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By: SCOTT HILL24th District Kansas Senator“It is a transformative tool.” “It is the greatest technological advance of our lifetime.” “It will cure cancer.” “It will change every field and every job.” “It will solve global warming.”These and other headlines like them have screamed at us that the “it” which is Artificial Intelligence (AI), is the great new silver bullet. When I hear superlatives, without limit, it is time to take a deeper look. So, what is AI?At the core of the computer is the idea of assisted decision making. That idea actually dates back hundreds of years. However, with the invention of electronic chips, computing became ubiquitous in our lives. The simplest concept of a computer is that it decides between option “a” and option “b” based on input “c.” By storing the instructions for future use, the computer always makes the same decision on the same inputs, then reports the results as an output. Since the inception of electronic computers, the speed and complexity of these instructions and related calculations have increased consistently and dramatically. As storage space increases and the number of instructions multiply, the ability to control complex situations is accentuated. The important thing to remember is that conventional computing functions by repeating known situations.With advanced computing technology, which is erroneously called AI, programmers have developed a method where computers make decisions on unknown variables. We as humans do this on a continuous basis. We find ourselves making a decision in a situation we have never experienced before. These novel situations may cause us stress but result in an increase in our knowledge base. The computer programmer’s AI mimics the human’s ability to decide in a novel situation. While humans make decisions based on an infinite number of experiential inputs, computer technology is limited to the parameters of programmed memory. Collaborative programming has increased the robustness of the decision-making capabilities of the computer. However, the computer does not have ethics or awareness of it’s own, rather it is the collective morality of its creator. In a simple illustration it may be the latest iteration of the historical idea of man versus machine.An interesting peripheral issue that becomes extremely important is energy usage. A human being makes an infinite number of decisions every day on a caloric consumption of 2000 – 2500 Kcal. This amount of energy is essentially the equivalent of a 100-watt lightbulb. Estimates for AI computing reveal a three-fold increase in our electric power consumption over the next ten years. An approximate forecast for America is a 400 terawatt increase in electric power consumption. This is approximately 10,000 times more than all of the residents of America’s combined caloric input. While I am supportive of the idea that computing is important in our world, it is minor compared to the need for relevant education for our children. The importance of knowledge-rich education coupled with enhancing processing skills in our brains has never been greater. Humans have always been superior to the machines we create because of our emphasis on educating the next generation. Mind numbing mediocrity of our education system could result in a scenario where our AI machines not only rob us of our ability to think, but also the energy we need to live.Senator Scott Hill, PhDYou can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

View from the Hill: The cost of AI

Kansas is competing with all 49 other states for a share of nearly $50 billion in federal rural health funding, money that will shape hospital survival and healthcare access through 2030. 

Kansas submitted its 60-page application, but here’s what Kansans weren’t told:

By failing to convene a special session, the Legislature forfeited its ability to guide how Kansas negotiates this massive federal deal.

The special session of the Kansas legislature which failed to materialize was in part about ensuring the Legislature had oversight before the Governor entered a five-year agreement with <a href="https://www.cms.gov/">CMS</a> that will determine:

• What performance standards Kansas must meet

• How money flows for the rest of the decade

Without the Legislature in session, all negotiations now occur without checks, balances, or rural input.

Experts estimate Kansas could receive around $500 million in base funding,&nbsp;if&nbsp;our plan is accepted. But the remaining $25 billion is competitive, and CMS favors states that show:

Because Kansas couldn’t unify on a procedural vote, our application is less competitive. A special session could have added oversight, protected rural regions, aligned budgets, and demonstrated the unity CMS rewards.

As a resident of Salina, I see how deeply rural communities rely on Salina Regional Health Center, which serves patients all the way to the Colorado border. If Kansas receives less funding or weaker terms, rural Kansans, not policymakers, will feel the consequences through longer drives, fewer services, and more strain on local hospitals.

KDHE, KRHIA, and the KU Health System Care Collaborative worked hard under pressure to submit Kansas’ application. But they should not have been the only voices shaping a five-year federal agreement.

Kansas should have entered negotiations with:

Instead, the state goes into federal negotiations divided and at a disadvantage.

Rural Kansans understand what hospital closures and thin staffing mean for their communities. Decisions made in Topeka without rural involvement carry real consequences for families along and west of I-135.

When lawmakers return in January, they must restore oversight, strengthen transparency, and ensure Kansas is prepared to compete for the full amount of federal rural health funding.

Rural health is too important for unilateral decisions. Kansas needs bipartisan leadership, and unity when the stakes are this high.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1763656803845.png" alt="Photo courtesy, Naomi Odonnell / The Beacon&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy, Naomi Odonnell / The Beacon&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>By: JAY VANIERKansas is competing with all 49 other states for a share of nearly $50 billion in federal rural health funding, money that will shape hospital survival and healthcare access through 2030. Kansas submitted its 60-page application, but here’s what Kansans weren’t told:By failing to convene a special session, the Legislature forfeited its ability to guide how Kansas negotiates this massive federal deal.The special session of the Kansas legislature which failed to materialize was in part about ensuring the Legislature had oversight before the Governor entered a five-year agreement with <a href="https://www.cms.gov/">CMS</a> that will determine:• Which hospitals get priority• Which regions are funded• What performance standards Kansas must meet• How money flows for the rest of the decadeWithout the Legislature in session, all negotiations now occur without checks, balances, or rural input.<h2>Kansas Risks Losing Out</h2>Experts estimate Kansas could receive around $500 million in base funding,&nbsp;if&nbsp;our plan is accepted. But the remaining $25 billion is competitive, and CMS favors states that show:• Unified governance• Legislative oversight• Strong rural planning• Clear accountabilityBecause Kansas couldn’t unify on a procedural vote, our application is less competitive. A special session could have added oversight, protected rural regions, aligned budgets, and demonstrated the unity CMS rewards.As a resident of Salina, I see how deeply rural communities rely on Salina Regional Health Center, which serves patients all the way to the Colorado border. If Kansas receives less funding or weaker terms, rural Kansans, not policymakers, will feel the consequences through longer drives, fewer services, and more strain on local hospitals.KDHE, KRHIA, and the KU Health System Care Collaborative worked hard under pressure to submit Kansas’ application. But they should not have been the only voices shaping a five-year federal agreement.Kansas should have entered negotiations with:• A united Legislature• Rural representation• Statutory safeguards• Clear, shared prioritiesInstead, the state goes into federal negotiations divided and at a disadvantage.Rural Kansans understand what hospital closures and thin staffing mean for their communities. Decisions made in Topeka without rural involvement carry real consequences for families along and west of I-135.When lawmakers return in January, they must restore oversight, strengthen transparency, and ensure Kansas is prepared to compete for the full amount of federal rural health funding.Rural health is too important for unilateral decisions. Kansas needs bipartisan leadership, and unity when the stakes are this high.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

Kansas lost influence in a critical rural health decision

Across the United States, millions of people are struggling with mental health challenges and not getting the support they need. Rates of anxiety, depression, and substance use have continued to rise. Suicide is now the twelfth leading cause of death, and nearly half of those who die by suicide have a diagnosed mental illness. Some marginalized communities are suffering even more. Native Americans report nearly double the rate of suicidal thoughts, and transgender individuals are nine times more likely to attempt suicide than the national average (NAMI, 2025).

Congress recognized the urgency of this problem when it passed the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022 (H.R. 7666). This policy takes steps toward improving our mental health system by funding over 30 federal programs focused on prevention, treatment, and crisis response. It also supports the national 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and encourages better integration of behavioral health into primary health care. This is an approach that acknowledges that mental and physical health are connected.

This policy created an important start for change in the support for mental health and substance abuse, but there is still a major barrier standing in the way of its success: a severe shortage of mental health professionals.

Right now, nearly 160 million Americans live in areas with too few mental health providers (NAMI, 2025). In many rural and underserved communities, people must travel hours or wait months for care, if they can access it at all. Burnout among providers is widespread, and the workforce lacks diversity, limiting culturally responsive treatment (Ballout, 2025; National Center, 2024) This is resulting in delayed or missed care and the rise of mental health issues along with an economic burden of roughly $193 billion in lost productivity each year (NAMI, 2025).

If we want the Restoring Hope Act to continue to make real improvements, we need to strengthen the workforce that carries it out. That means investing in the people who deliver care such as social workers, counselors, psychologists, physiatrists, and peer support specialists.

A few steps that could make a big difference:

· Expand loan forgiveness and tuition reimbursement for behavioral health professionals who serve in shortage areas.

· Increase psychiatric residency slots and provide more training opportunities for future mental health providers (Gates &amp; Mohiuddin, 2022).

· Integrate behavioral health into primary care settings, so people can access help where they already receive medical care (National Center, 2024)

· Grow peer support and telehealth programs, which have proven especially effective in rural and underserved areas.

· Improve pay and reduce administrative burdens, to keep skilled professionals from burning out and leaving the field.

These ideas are feasible, and existing agencies like HRSA and SAMHSA already run programs that could expand to meet these goals. Initial funding costs would be significant, but the long-term savings, both financial and societal, would far outweigh the costs.

As a current case manager and a student working toward social work, I see this as not only as a policy issue but an ethical concern. Millions of Americans can’t access care, and we need to call for a change. We need a stronger, more diverse mental health workforce to deliver culturally competent care to everyone who needs it. When we invest in providers, we invest in people. We can create continued growth, families can rebuild, students can focus, and communities can heal. The Restoring Hope Act laid the foundation, but we need to expand this by addressing the workforce shortage. This expansion will support citizens mental health needs and expand their access to care.

You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor and studies, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com

Ballout, S. (2025). Trauma, mental health workforce shortages, and health equity: A crisis in public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040620

Gates, A., &amp; Mohiuddin, S. (2022). Addressing the mental health workforce shortage through the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2021. Academic Psychiatry, 46 (4), 540–541. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35312991/

Mental health by the numbers. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2025, August 7). https://www.nami.org/about-mental-illness/mental-health-by-the-numbers/

National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. (2024). State of Behavioral Health Workforce. In HRSA.gov. https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/state-of-the-behavioral-health-workforce-report-2024.pdf

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1763953865229.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of Pixabay" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy of Pixabay</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;SAHARA SAULENASAcross the United States, millions of people are struggling with mental health challenges and not getting the support they need. Rates of anxiety, depression, and substance use have continued to rise. Suicide is now the twelfth leading cause of death, and nearly half of those who die by suicide have a diagnosed mental illness. Some marginalized communities are suffering even more. Native Americans report nearly double the rate of suicidal thoughts, and transgender individuals are nine times more likely to attempt suicide than the national average (NAMI, 2025).Congress recognized the urgency of this problem when it passed the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022 (H.R. 7666). This policy takes steps toward improving our mental health system by funding over 30 federal programs focused on prevention, treatment, and crisis response. It also supports the national 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and encourages better integration of behavioral health into primary health care. This is an approach that acknowledges that mental and physical health are connected.This policy created an important start for change in the support for mental health and substance abuse, but there is still a major barrier standing in the way of its success: a severe shortage of mental health professionals.<h2>Support Shortage</h2>Right now, nearly 160 million Americans live in areas with too few mental health providers (NAMI, 2025). In many rural and underserved communities, people must travel hours or wait months for care, if they can access it at all. Burnout among providers is widespread, and the workforce lacks diversity, limiting culturally responsive treatment (Ballout, 2025; National Center, 2024) This is resulting in delayed or missed care and the rise of mental health issues along with an economic burden of roughly $193 billion in lost productivity each year (NAMI, 2025).<h2>Strengthening the Workforce</h2>If we want the Restoring Hope Act to continue to make real improvements, we need to strengthen the workforce that carries it out. That means investing in the people who deliver care such as social workers, counselors, psychologists, physiatrists, and peer support specialists.<h2>A few steps that could make a big difference:</h2>· Expand loan forgiveness and tuition reimbursement for behavioral health professionals who serve in shortage areas.· Increase psychiatric residency slots and provide more training opportunities for future mental health providers (Gates &amp; Mohiuddin, 2022).· Integrate behavioral health into primary care settings, so people can access help where they already receive medical care (National Center, 2024)· Grow peer support and telehealth programs, which have proven especially effective in rural and underserved areas.· Improve pay and reduce administrative burdens, to keep skilled professionals from burning out and leaving the field.These ideas are feasible, and existing agencies like HRSA and SAMHSA already run programs that could expand to meet these goals. Initial funding costs would be significant, but the long-term savings, both financial and societal, would far outweigh the costs.<h2>A Moral Call to Action</h2>As a current case manager and a student working toward social work, I see this as not only as a policy issue but an ethical concern. Millions of Americans can’t access care, and we need to call for a change. We need a stronger, more diverse mental health workforce to deliver culturally competent care to everyone who needs it. When we invest in providers, we invest in people. We can create continued growth, families can rebuild, students can focus, and communities can heal. The Restoring Hope Act laid the foundation, but we need to expand this by addressing the workforce shortage. This expansion will support citizens mental health needs and expand their access to care.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor and studies, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com<h2>References</h2>Ballout, S. (2025). Trauma, mental health workforce shortages, and health equity: A crisis in public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040620Gates, A., &amp; Mohiuddin, S. (2022). Addressing the mental health workforce shortage through the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2021. Academic Psychiatry, 46 (4), 540–541. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35312991/Mental health by the numbers. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2025, August 7). https://www.nami.org/about-mental-illness/mental-health-by-the-numbers/National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. (2024). State of Behavioral Health Workforce. In HRSA.gov. https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/state-of-the-behavioral-health-workforce-report-2024.pdf

Restoring hope requires restoring the workforce behind it

For those who vote in election,s there is a feeling that you are doing your part to shape the direction of our country. It is at the same time a satisfying and frustrating experience. Many of us have a feeling of duty to our communities and ultimately to our nation to vote our preferences for leadership. At the same time, it feels like our single vote is meaningless in the course of an election. As you read this, most yard signs have come down and races have mostly been decided. There was a time, however, when a United States Senate race took ten months to decide.

If you remember the 1974 election season, it is probably because of the Watergate scandal. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 after two years of investigation into his conduct in the 1972 election. Lesser known is the race for the New Hampshire senate seat that took ten months to decide. The race for an open seat that pitted Republican Louis Wyman against Democrat John Durkin came down to a margin of victory of just two votes. Initially Wyman won by 355 votes. When Durkin demanded a recount, he ended up winning by a mere 10 votes. Wyman of course demanded a recount and was reinstated as the winner by 2 votes. When the Democrat controlled senate would not seat Wyman, a long fight ensued that finally ended when a special election was held on September 17, 1975, with Wyman easily winning by 27,000 votes.

We have had many contentious issues regarding elections in our country’s history. Election laws are written to reduce the influence of outside sources. However, there continues to be controversy surrounding elections. In the latter half of the nineteenth century complaints over influence peddling and party juggernauts led to “progressive” election reforms that resulted in the convoluted system we now have where some elections are partisan and other elections held in odd numbered years are non-partisan. This year the state Republican Party was involved in its influence being used in a city election in a partisan manner. While this seems inappropriate to many, it may pale in comparison to the 1800 presidential race that was decided after 35 votes in the United States House of Representatives. Emotions were so charged that the winning Vice

President who wanted to be president, Aaron Burr, ended up having a pistol duel with the man who was instrumental in Thomas Jefferson being elected president, Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps losing out on president provided an extra motivation for Burr, because he did not lose the duel.

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media.&nbsp;The&nbsp;editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1708266344072.png" alt="Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mipro/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Scott Hill, 24th District Kansas Senator. (Rachel Mipro/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By: SCOTT HILL24th District Kansas SenatorFor those who vote in election,s there is a feeling that you are doing your part to shape the direction of our country. It is at the same time a satisfying and frustrating experience. Many of us have a feeling of duty to our communities and ultimately to our nation to vote our preferences for leadership. At the same time, it feels like our single vote is meaningless in the course of an election. As you read this, most yard signs have come down and races have mostly been decided. There was a time, however, when a United States Senate race took ten months to decide.If you remember the 1974 election season, it is probably because of the Watergate scandal. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 after two years of investigation into his conduct in the 1972 election. Lesser known is the race for the New Hampshire senate seat that took ten months to decide. The race for an open seat that pitted Republican Louis Wyman against Democrat John Durkin came down to a margin of victory of just two votes. Initially Wyman won by 355 votes. When Durkin demanded a recount, he ended up winning by a mere 10 votes. Wyman of course demanded a recount and was reinstated as the winner by 2 votes. When the Democrat controlled senate would not seat Wyman, a long fight ensued that finally ended when a special election was held on September 17, 1975, with Wyman easily winning by 27,000 votes.We have had many contentious issues regarding elections in our country’s history. Election laws are written to reduce the influence of outside sources. However, there continues to be controversy surrounding elections. In the latter half of the nineteenth century complaints over influence peddling and party juggernauts led to “progressive” election reforms that resulted in the convoluted system we now have where some elections are partisan and other elections held in odd numbered years are non-partisan. This year the state Republican Party was involved in its influence being used in a city election in a partisan manner. While this seems inappropriate to many, it may pale in comparison to the 1800 presidential race that was decided after 35 votes in the United States House of Representatives. Emotions were so charged that the winning VicePresident who wanted to be president, Aaron Burr, ended up having a pistol duel with the man who was instrumental in Thomas Jefferson being elected president, Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps losing out on president provided an extra motivation for Burr, because he did not lose the duel.Already in the twenty-first century we have had two very contentious presidential elections. Even more bizarre than “hanging chads,” though, was the 1824 presidential election when Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but did not secure a majority of the electoral vote. The horse trading that ensued in the next month in the House of Representatives ended up with Jackson’s home state of Kentucky giving their electoral vote to John Qunicy Adams, the eventual winner, even though he did not receive a single popular vote in Kentucky. Jackson, by the way, came back and won the presidency four years later.Our elections often are clouded with controversy, but we have continued as a country for nearly 250 years. It is important to work to improve the integrity of elections. I have voted for several important pieces of legislation over the last three years to reinforce the integrity of the election process. There is still room for improvement as the process shows. However, never let a doubt in your mind prevent you from casting your vote. It is essential to the future of our election process.You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to&nbsp;newstips@salinapost.com